## Facts

- Bud Rountree was a Boise Hawks season ticket holder for over twenty years.
- On August 13, 2008, he attended a game at Memorial Stadium with family.
- The stadium had extensive protective netting; many areas had vertical netting, and some had horizontal netting.
- Rountree’s season seats and the Hawks Nest dining area were protected by both vertical and/or horizontal netting.
- The adjacent Executive Club was covered overhead by horizontal netting but was largely not protected by vertical netting on the sides.
- After eating, Rountree stood in the Executive Club, became distracted, then turned back toward the field after crowd noise and was struck in the face by a foul ball, causing loss of an eye.
- The ticket contained a printed disclaimer stating the holder assumes risks of baseball, including being hit by thrown or batted balls; Rountree testified he did not read it.
- Rountree sued Boise Baseball and related entities for negligence based on alleged inadequate spectator protection and stadium operation.

## Issues

1. Whether Idaho should adopt the “Baseball Rule” limiting a stadium operator’s duty to protect spectators from foul balls.
2. Whether primary implied assumption of risk remains a complete defense in Idaho that can bar recovery for injuries from inherent activity risks.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Boise Baseball’s motion for summary judgment and remanded.
- The court declined to adopt the Baseball Rule, leaving spectator-injury claims to be evaluated under ordinary negligence and premises-liability principles.
- The court held that, apart from express written or oral consent, assumption of risk (primary or secondary) is not a complete defense in Idaho and is addressed through comparative negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Courts will not create a categorical, industry-specific limitation of duty for baseball stadium operators absent compelling public policy; ordinary negligence and premises-liability standards apply.
- In Idaho, implied assumption of risk does not operate as an absolute bar to recovery; assumption-of-risk considerations are folded into comparative negligence and fault allocation.
- Only express assumption of risk (clear written or oral consent) may operate as a stand-alone defense; the case did not resolve whether a standard ticket disclaimer constitutes an enforceable express waiver.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court refused to adopt a special “Baseball Rule” and ruled that implied assumption of risk cannot bar recovery as a matter of law, requiring spectator-injury claims to proceed under ordinary negligence with comparative fault allocation.


Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC, 154 Idaho 167, 296 P.3d 373 (Idaho 2013)